Support for English TOCs 23/24

[43066]

Indeed. If we could minimise the amount of passengers who travel on our railway (and generally cause delays) to nearer zero, we could maximise the productivity of drivers to new levels

That’s just a complete misrepresentation of what I’ve said, really?

Would you say that was a productive use of resources, to take a train of fresh air?

The value is in the skills deployed in order for the service to be provided at all, surely?

I’d be careful with the argument you’ve deployed above, because it’s perilously close to “let’s close the entire railway other than the most profitable routes, at the most profitable times (ie the bits in and out of London), sack all the guards” etc.

The railway’s “output”, on any particular journey, isn’t really relevant to the idea of staffing a public transport service. I also don’t think it’s right to externalise other costs/benefits onto individual roles in the way you have done. They’re needed to run the service, or they aren’t. The skill involved in driving a train (or guarding it) isn’t inherently different, or any less or more valuable in salary terms, just because it has fewer or more passengers on it.

 

[Krokodil]

The value is in the skills deployed in order for the service to be provided at all, surely?

No, that's the input, not the output.

I’d be careful with the argument you’ve deployed above, because it’s perilously close to “let’s close the entire railway other than the most profitable routes, at the most profitable times (ie the bits in and out of London), sack all the guards” etc.

Not at all. Did you miss this paragraph?

In Northern's case, there does need to be a recognition that it is worthwhile running unproductive services for social reasons, and also that the way to grow ridership and revenue (to improve productivity) is to invest in staff, rolling stock and infrastructure to provide a reliable and usable service. This relies on the Treasury being willing to spend money for predicted future gain, something it is very reluctant to do. Ireland has done so though, and very successfully.

 

[43066]

No, that's the input, not the output.


Not at all. Did you miss this paragraph?

I read all of your post. I’m just not convinced your “input/output” analysis/understanding of “productivity” is remotely correct, for the purposes of this discussion.